Predict the Score: POTUS EDITION

What about Missoula, Montana? Bismarck, North Dakota? Tupelo, Mississippi? You'd have a hard time convincing me those places would catch a whiff of jet fuel from a campaign stop, and people who don't live in anything resembling an urban area or on one's outskirts might as well forget it. I understand the point you'd like to make, and fair as it may seem, this is the United States of America rather than simply America. The states should have a voice.

 

The states have a voice. They send reps and senators to Congress. President is a national office and should be a national vote.

In the current situation, those places aren't even close to being on the radar. In a national vote, would they be? Perhaps. I would imagine that candidates would go to all sorts of new and varying places to harvest votes. Plus, there could be innumerable tactics taken and I have no doubt more states would be visited under a general popular vote than are now.

 

They do. The senate and congress make sure of this, particularly the Senate. It is the reason it exists.

But there is one and only one national election, and that is for the President of the United States of America. And if it were truly a general election for the only national election, that man sitting in Tupelo, Mississippi would have just as much of an effect on the election as the guy sitting in Starbucks in Manhattan, NY.

Now, that guy in Tupelo, Mississippi, if he votes, has about 1.2 times as much effect as the guy in NY (I made that 1.2 up as I have no math to back that claim, and I don't know what it would be exactly).

Would you want to people in Jelico, TN have more say in who is governor over you sitting in Knoxville?

 

But they might hit the state capitals of those cities... which they don't now. So people would have to go to the "big city?" That's better than what they have no, where they have to go to Ohio.

 

It is currently a national vote. I don't see the problem.

 

I have no problem with the guy from Iuka having a greater mathematical effect on the outcome of the race than the average New Yorker. New York, LA, Chicago, etc shouldn't rule kudzu covered Mississippi.

Well, I've not been able to migrate back to the promised land, but that's a reasonable suggestion. Do you support the allotment of Supremes based on Grand Divisions?

 

If it's a national vote, why is the national vote leader the runner-up? I'm sorry, it's a problem. If it happens to the Republican in the future, it's still a problem. it's a silly and outdated idea, based upon the idea that citizens couldn't be entirely trusted and slavery in the South created a numbers problem for the South.

 

I guess that's possible. Trump and Clinton came to Birmingham during this last cycle (at least I think) as it is.

 

It's as relevant today as ever. Did you vote? Did those in New York? Did those in Minot? Yazoo City? Miami? A handful of populous states should not be allowed to select the president. I'd argue for a reduction in allotted electoral votes by population before trashing a system that has worked for over 200 years.

 

Are you OK with Ohio and Florida choosing the President most years?

 

How would New York rule Mississippi?

If the vote is 5,000 Americans to 3,000 Americans, why does it matter if 3,000 of the 5,000 are within one square mile of each other, and the other 5,000 have one square mile between each? The vote is 5,000 to 3,000.

 

Wait, so your argument is that you don't want people in bigger cities to have more of a say in the vote, but are cool with that concept if they live in the sticks? A New Yorker isn't any less of an American than a person from Mississippi.

 

I believe a New Yorker is no less a US citizen than someone from Mississippi, but I also believe Mississippi is no less a state in this union than New York.

 

They have their representation in Congress and each of their citizens would have a vote that's equal to any citizen in New York. What else should be given?

 

When has that happened?

 

They are swing states, and in the most recent and even not so recent elections, they have been the source of deciding the presidential race.

 

*******s. I think we deserve them.

 

Wait, I thought you were against the EC... Isn't your statement the very basis of how the EC works?

 

The answer is never. It's never happened.

 

It is the same exact logical argument about New York and California "choosing" the President. It is just now Ohio and Florida "choosing" the President.